w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Abhishek Gupta & Others v/s State of U.P. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH2005PTC154038

Company & Directors' Information:- ABHISHEK CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51491PN1993PLC073706

Company & Directors' Information:- M R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051324

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC077255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1974PTC007339

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204DL1954PTC002390

Company & Directors' Information:- S K GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1973PTC016294

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. GUPTA AND COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052138

Company & Directors' Information:- B R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL2000PTC107343

Company & Directors' Information:- T N GUPTA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U02005WB1951PTC020141

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U24239DL1999PTC102248

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P GUPTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016661

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20211UP1975PTC004078

Company & Directors' Information:- M K GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1979PTC009517

Company & Directors' Information:- A J GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210UP1980PTC004986

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. GUPTA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1944PTC000794

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26932RJ1972PTC001459

    Application U/S 482 No. 12583 of 2020

    Decided On, 24 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ BEER SINGH

    For the Applicant: Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A.



Judgment Text


Sri R.B. Maurya, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 6479 of 2018 (Priyanka Tulsian vs. Abhishek Gupta and Ors), under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Corut of Metro Politian Magistrate-I Kanpur Nagar.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2 whereas applicant nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and that the alleged dispute between the parties has taken place due to misconception and that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant of the case does not want to pursue this case. It has been submitted that the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 have been granted decree of divorce by mutual consent and that now both the parties have agreed that impugned complaint and consequential proceedings may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / complainant has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute and now the complainant does not want to pursue the impugned complaint and thus, the complaint and consequential proceedings may be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, recently in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, decided on 05.03.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its eralier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

Keeping the above stated position of law in mind, in the instant case the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and does not have any serious impact on society if parties compromise the matter. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedent. Considering the above stated law and facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

case in question. Accordingly the impugned complaint and consequential proceeding of Complaint case No. 6479 of 2018 (Priyanka Tulsian vs. Abhishek Gupta and others), under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar, are quashed. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
O R